City Officials: Decision on Red-Light Cameras Unlikely to Affect Lakeland

Thursday

Jun 12, 2014 at 4:30 PMJun 12, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Thursday's Florida Supreme Court ruling that sides with motorists who challenged local red-light camera ordinances will have less impact on Lakeland than on other cities, City Attorney Tim McCausland said.

By RYAN E. LITTLETHE LEDGER

LAKELAND | Thursday's Florida Supreme Court ruling that sides with motorists who challenged local red-light camera ordinances will have less impact on Lakeland than on other cities, City Attorney Tim McCausland said.In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said Orlando and Aventura did not comply with the state's traffic laws because of the way they enforced red-light camera violations.The case focused on red-light camera programs that began before approval of a June 1, 2010, statewide law that authorized the traffic devices and set requirements.Lakeland already has settled a class-action lawsuit that McCausland said protects it from most damages related to the ruling.Haines City, the other Polk County city to install the cameras, likely won't be affected. Haines City City Manager Jonathan Evans said its ­cameras didn't become active until 2011, after the enactment of the statewide law.Lakeland's red-light cameras were put into use June 1, 2009. They were authorized by a city ordinance because no state law existed to allow the use of cameras for traffic enforcement.Lakeland paid $667,965 in 2011 to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 2009 that covered anyone who paid a red-light ticket issued before June 1, 2010. Arizona-based ATS, which provides the cameras, paid $203,433.It's that settlement that puts the city of Lakeland in a better position, McCausland said."From the city's standpoint, a majority of those cases have been resolved by settlement," McCausland said. "Any cases that might be impacted by this ruling or how many people may be impacted by this ruling, we have no way of knowing. But it is likely that any damages at this stage would be minimal."Use of red-light cameras has been heavily debated in recent years as they have been installed across the state. Although supporters say they help traffic safety, critics question, in part, whether the use of the devices is motivated by cities seeking more money from traffic fines.Writing for the majority opinion, Justice Charles Canady said in the ruling: "Each of the ordinances creates a municipal code enforcement system for the disposition of red-light violations that is entirely separate from the enforcement system established under (two parts of state law)."Canady was joined by Chief Justice Ricky Polston and justices R. Fred Lewis, Jorge Labarga and James E.C. Perry.The Supreme Court took the cases after conflicting rulings by lower courts. The 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld the Aventura ordinance, while the 5th District Court of Appeal struck down the Orlando measure. Exactly what the ruling means for the thousands of people ticketed before the statewide law was implemented is unknown.The majority opinion does not explicitly address returning money to motorists, but it upheld the decision by the 5th District Court of Appeal.That decision said, in a footnote, that a proposed class action had been denied in the Orlando case. It also noted that only the Orlando plaintiff had challenged the ordinance and that "others who paid the fine most likely would be barred" by a legal doctrine that often prevents recoveries by people who voluntarily make payments.McCausland would not say what will happen to anyone who was ticketed in Lakeland before the 2010 law but did not pay the fine. He said only that they would not have a valid claim against the city.

[ Information from the News Service of Florida was used in this report. Ryan Little can be reached at ryan.little@theledger.com or 863-802-7592. Follow him on Twitter @LedgerRyan. ]